I don't know, there are lots of things we don't let people do to their children even if they have a religious motivation.

I have yet to see evidence compelling enough to determine that the practice significantly degrades a child's quality of life.

*like FGM for instance*

I just do not see how you can oppose one and not the other.

I'm actually fine with the surgery that removes the clitoral hood, though not the entire clitoris.

Well at least you are consistently wrong...

XD

If I wanted to remove the last joint of my children's left little toe at birth, because I had a religious conviction that Satan lived in the left little toenail, would you prohibit or allow that practice @DJ_Anuz?

I'd think it's silly, but I don't think the government should prevent it.

If it were the big toe or the thumb I would say no.

So at what point does mutilating newborns go from 'silly' to 'unacceptable' in your book?

When it significantly will reduce the normal function of their body.

Because for me it's the part where you are removing or damaging any healthy, normal part of their bodies.

That is a completely subjective standard. What if that child was going to grow up to be a gold medal gymnast but the loss of proprioception from that missing toe joint makes them fall off the balance beam at the Olympics?

Would that count as a 'significant loss of function'?

How about we *just don't let people cut up children*?

Can you cut your child's hair?

@uncephalized No, because the Olympics isn't normal function.

It's nonliving tissue that grows back so yes, of course.

Being an Olympian is near super human, and being born short could do the same thing.

It would need to inhibit you from doing something that anyone else could do.

Yes but you don't see a difference between *being born short* and your parents *deciding to shorten your shinbones surgically*?

Really?

There is a clear difference between cutting off a piece of the body that is mostly under used, and shortening your shins surgically, which btw, can't be done safely to newborns.

If parents wanted to genetically alter their child to be short, during gestation I wouldn't want the government to ban that either.

Its not just botched circumcisions that's a problem, ones that go well also cause problems (and sometimes death in case some aren't aware). They lead to many sexually issues for men, and we don't have enough evidence for me to say with certainty, but we are getting more evidence that its a factor in men's ever growing problem with ED (and other problems that were pointed out).

I would like to say, for a newborn baby who has just come into this world. And one of the very first things you do to that baby boy is cause it horrible pain (like we could not imagine).
Do you not believe this would cause psychological damage? We don't know how much yet, but this often manifest in many issues for a person like @uncephalized said, of fear and trust (as well as others).
Now can humans over come those issues? Sure. But why would you purposely impose that on a human.

I just have yet to see enough evidence showing that a circumcision harms someone's quality of life enough that it justifies the damage caused by giving the govt control over that decision to children of people religiously or otherwise compelled to circumcise.

If it's ok to remove dead tissue, can you remove your child's epidermis?

Micamike, that's a ridiculous comparison and you know it.

Removing the epidermis causes severe pain and increases risk of infection.

Yeah, so is circumcision with shortening a shin bone or amputating the little toe and you know it

No actually the little toe analogy is pretty good.

Yes the shinbones analogy was intentionally hyperbolic.

I would *gladly* trade a joint off my toe to get my foreskin back. No question.

Ok, I wouldn't

I did ask for anyone who wanted to downplay the issue not that they couldn't do so, but at least watch
karen straughan video before doing so..... Oh well

@uncephalized
¿Oh? ¿You rember it then?
And amidst the pain, frustration, confusion, and sudden COLD of birth, this is overwhelming to you?

As to the studies you refrence, I know of a study that proved vaccines caused autism...

As to (*ah shit here he goes again...*) long term outcome, when I was at Camp Devil Dog (not the most austere conditions there were at least three Marines down for penile infections; When I ended up homeless, having been cut probably saved my life (one less thing to go wrong).

Meanwhile... My dad wasn't circumsized as child. He got the procedure *just before* shipping off... To Viet Nam. If Camp Devil Dog can put that much Hell in you, imagine a jungle, with 115% humidity and 112° heat... And no cleanliness in 1ØØ miles.

Thank you, Dad, for sparing me a date worse than just death... But torturous death.
Twice.

Sped Kaczynski

@Shadows Shadows there is a great clip from a former ICMI conference

I linked something from the the ICMI, but if you have any other good ones link it.

@Mandatory Carry
No, I have no conscious memory of the event. As I already said.

My argument does not rely on studies of outcomes, it's merely one more of the many reasons *I* am against the procedure.

There is no increased risk of penile or unrinary tract infections from being uncut. As far as I'm aware it's the reverse; the intact foreskin is actually part of the defense mechanism *against* such infections.

Do you even know the circumcision status of the downed Marines you speak of?

The notion that circumcision saved your life is, frankly, groundless speculation.

Did your dad get the procedure done for some medical reason, or only out of a vague fear that his perfectly functional reproductive system would somehow betray him if he didn't?